States began passing legislation mandating the collection of genetic material from certain convicted offenders in 1988. By 1998, all 50 states had passed laws allowing DNA databases for convicted sexual offenders, and some states collected DNA from all those convicted of a felony. A survey of 416 persons in Maryland revealed wide support for the inclusion of convicted violent offenders (89%) in DNA databases, in sync with most states’ policies. Between two thirds and three quarters of respondents also supported expanding DNA databases to include those suspected of a violent offense, any convicted felon, as well as all convicted offenders, minor and major. Support for collecting the DNA of those suspected of any crime and for all newborns was considerably less (44% to 45%). Although a comprehensive database is most effective for solving and deterring crimes, vigorously enforced protections against abuse of this technology must be in place.
Annas, G. J. (1993). Privacy rules for DNA databanks: Protecting coded “future diaries.”JAMA, 270, 2346-2350.
2.
Annas, G. J. (1996, January). Genetic prophecy and genetic privacy. Trial, p. 18-18.
3.
Annas, G. J. (1999). Panel I: Privacy and discrimination in the age of genetic engineering. Genetic privacy: There ought to be a law. Texas Review of Law and Politics, 4, 7-7.
4.
Barfield, D. F. (2000). DNA fingerprinting—Justifying the special need for the Fourth Amendment’s intrusion into the zone of privacy. Richmond Journal of Law and Technology, 6, 27-27.
5.
Connors, M. A. III. (1994). DNA databases: The case for the combined DNA index system. Wake Forest Law Review, 29, 889-889.
6.
Dadio, S. M. (1995). Maryland’s DNA database system and repository: Does it pass constitutional muster?University of Baltimore Law Review, 25, 47-47.
7.
Denniston, L. (1999, March 24). High court asked to hear challenge to prosecution deals. Baltimore Sun, p. 3A-3A.
8.
Dodson, A. (2000). DNA “line-ups” based on a reasonable suspicion standard. University of Colorado Law Review, 71, 221-221.
9.
Donnelly, P., & Friedman, R. D. (1999). DNA database searches and the legal consumption of scientific evidence. Michigan Law Review, 7(4), 931-931.
10.
Eisenberg, D. (1999, September 6). Who’s reading your bills?Time, pp. 54-55.
11.
Goodyear, C., & Hallissy, E. (1999, October 19). Dangerous delay on DNA. San Francisco Chronicle, pp. A1-A1, A8-A8.
12.
Gostin, L. O. (1995). Health information privacy. Cornell Law Review, 80, 451-451.
13.
Guillen, M., Lareu, M. V., Pestoni, C., Salas, A., & Carracedo, A. (2000). Ethical-legal problems of DNA databases in criminal investigations. Journal of Medical Ethics, 26, 266-271.
14.
Hansen, M. (2000a, March). DNA bill of rights: Activists call for standards on inmate testing, evidence preservation. American Bar Association Journal, 86, 30-30.
15.
Hansen, M. (2000b, September). Everybody in genes: Measure urges giving inmates DNA access to prove innocence. American Bar Association Journal, 86, 97-97.
16.
Henn, W. (1999). Genetic screening with the DNA chip: A new Pandora’s box?Journal of Medical Ethics, 25, 200-203.
17.
Hibbert, M. (1999). DNA databanks: Law enforcement’s greatest surveillance tool?Wake Forest Law Review, 34, 767-767.
18.
Higgins, M. (1999, October). Acid test. American Bar Association Journal, 85, 64-64.
19.
Human genome [Special issue]. (2001, February 16). Science Magazine, 291(5507).
20.
Jost, K. (1999, May 28). DNA databases. CQ Researcher, pp. 451-468.
21.
Kimmelman, J. (2000). The promise and perils of criminal DNA databanking. Nature Biotechnology, 18, 695-696.
22.
Kluger, J. (1999, January 11). DNA detectives. Time, pp. 62-63.
23.
Krent, H. J. (1995). Of diaries and data banks: Use restrictions under the Fourth Amendment. Texas Law Review, 74, 49-49.
24.
Landry v. Attorney General, 709 N.E.2d 1085 (1999).
25.
Lewin, T. (2001, February 10). Commission sues railroad to end genetic testing in work injury case. The New York Times, p. A10-A10.
26.
Litchman, L., Mamula, K. B., & Rodier, D. N. (1999, September 27). Genetic database to fight crime found far behind schedule lacking funds and time. Pennsylvania Law Weekly, p. 2-2.
27.
Markett, M. J. (1996). Genetic diaries: An analysis of privacy protection in DNA data banks. Suffolk University Law Review, 30, 185-185.
28.
Menon, S. (1998, December 14). Society DNA. India Today, pp. 34-35.
29.
Montgomery, L. (1998, May 21). Debate over mass genetic testing. Seattle Times, p. A3-A3.
30.
Niccol, A. (Director). (1997). Gattaca[Film]. Culver City, CA: Columbia/Tristar.
31.
Nickerson, C. (2000, January 2). Perfect for genetic research, some Columbia/Tristar.
32.
Nickerson, C. (2000, January 2). Perfect for genetic research, some Icelanders are wary of losing privacy. The Human Factor,p.A1-A1.
33.
O’Brien, J. P., Jr. (1994). DNA fingerprinting: The Virginia approach. William & Mary Law Review, 35, 767-767.
34.
Poor, T. (1996, May 19). Genetic code vs. legal code. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, p. 1B-1B.
35.
Sankar, P. (1997). Topics for our times: The proliferation and risks of government DNA databases. American Journal of Public Health, 87(3), 336-337.
36.
Scheck, B., Neufeld, P., & Dwyer, J. (2000). Actual innocence: Five days to execution and other dispatches from the wrongly convicted. New York: Doubleday.
37.
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966).
38.
Schumacher, Robert W. II (1999). Expanding New York’s DNA database: The future of law enforcement. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 26, 1635-1635.
39.
Singer, Henry W. (2000, March). Iceland’s DNA database worries ethicists. Hematology/Oncology Today, 1(1), 32-33.
40.
Sinha, G. (1999, August). DNA detectives. Popular Science, 48-52.
41.
Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Association, 489 U.S. at 617 (1989).
42.
Stout, D. (2000, September 15). Lawmakers see hope for help on death cases. The New York Times, pp. A21-A21, A26-A26.
43.
Thomson, C. (1998, June 8). DNA use hits snags. Baltimore Sun, pp. 1B-1B, 14B-14B.
44.
Tracy, P. E., & Morgan, V. (2000). Big brother and his science kit: DNA databases for 21st century crime control?Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 90, 635-690.
45.
Waldbaum, J. (1999). DNA databanks in Massachusetts: Will the Declaration of Rights provide the nation’s first successful constitutional challenge?Journal of Law and Social Challenges, 3, 179-179.
46.
Watson, A. (2000). New tools: A new breed of high-tech detectives. Science, 289, 850-854.
47.
Webster, W. R., Jr. (2000). DNA database statutes and privacy in the information age. Health Matrix: Journal of Law Medicine, 10, 119-140.
48.
Wilson, R. S., Forman, L., & Asplen, C. A. (1999). Untangling the helix: Law enforcement and DNA. Corrections Today, 61, 20-22.
